Why does it matter if a women or a different race becomes president of the US?

Question

There is no difference, people make a too big deal out of it. I think that you should not be judged by your race or sex instead by the actions of your heart and what kind of policy's you have as a president. Everyone says that we're equal but in truth the people in the media who are saying that are also saying that it could be a chance for the first woman president or black president, which is kind of not really giving equality to everyone by saying that.

Answer 1

Hopefully there may be a woman president at some point, just so it isn't the woman who is currently being considered. That would a disaster beyond belief. (Did you see that she made number two on the just published list of the ten most corrupt politicians?). As far as race goes, I'll vote for the best man or woman who runs. Race is not an issue.
.

Answer 2

"Different race" - you mean not an "AmerIndian"/"First American"?
(Sorry, but I can never keep up with the PC designations for US ethnic groups - they keep changing!)
ALL Presidents have been from 'a different race', if you realise that the "Red Indians" (going back to my childhood!) are the 'race' who inhabited North American areas now called the USA!!

"Dubya" is not a woman or 'a different race'! He's made the USA more unpopular with the rest of the world (and there is a much BIGGER world outside it than inside it, Yanks!). Is that good?

I thought the idea of elected Heads of State was so you got the best PERSON for the job - in the eyes of the majority of the electors.
"FDR" was in a wheelchair, Lincoln was a back-country lawyer, etc. The "will of the people" saw them elected/re-elected as the best person for the job.

It should be on the person's capabilities, not whether they are male, female, transgender, black, white, purple or polka-dot!

(You're lucky. I'm a Monarchist and Charles is due to succeed 'QEII'. While the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in the 'Dominions' are the 'Heads of Government' and have the political power, he will become "Head of State". William, I could take. Charles pisses me off - but I can't support the Hereditary Monarchy and not have him for my next King!!)


PS: 'cute' - The Constitution - like the King James Bible - was written before "PC" came along. "Everybody" knew 'Men'/'Man' = "Humanity", male and female! (Or would you argue Jesus, in Christian thought, only came to save males and so that "all MALES might believe in Him"?)

Answer 3

I think you are being very naive. Traditionally women have always been use to male politicians and interestingly, a lot of women do not want to see a woman run a country (I'm sure there are also many that probably do). Men tend to be biased towards thinking that a woman could not run a country as well as a man, but Margaret Thatcher springs to mind where it was said she had bigger balls than her entire cabinet! If a man had been in charge, the Falkland Islands would probably be Argentinian today. When it comes to race, then it comes down to the issue of a minority representing a majority - and why should they? Blacks tend to vote Democrat in the US, but if a black Republican candidate stood for president I bet black voters would shift 100% to support a black Republican candidate just to get 'one of their own' in power, regardless of his political views. When you look at it like that, it is not unreasonable that similarly whites would rather have 'one of their own' run the country. As the whites are a majority, they have the priveledge of having a liberal elite who feel it would not matter. Should the whites find them selves out numbered by Blacks and Hispanics - suddenly they cannot afford to be liberal and they will cluster together in support of a white guy. It is all about being represented, and having a Black Muslim as President is as far removed from your average White Christian to be considered totally unacceptable. Thus your statement (There is no difference) makes it clear how YOU feel, but not everyone would share that view point, and it should not be stated as a fact, but rather as your opinion.
People such as yourself advocate it will be alright for a black to be a President of the US or a Prime Minister in the UK. But you probably also had kittens that a white minority were in charge in South Africa, and insisted on sanctions until Black majority rule was established. I guarantee, you will not see another white president in South Africa, because the blacks are just as racist. They want 'one of their own'. White liberals flutter on about multiculturalism in the US and UK - why? If Black majority rule was good enough for Africa, then white majority rule should be good enough for the US and Europe!
If white Catholics in Northern Ireland find it 'impossible' to share power with white Protestants, consider how big the divide is when that person is of another race. There have even been big moves to consider homosexuals as 'normal' and start to make them Bishops etc. I bet if one stood for President though, his campaign would not have a rats chance of even getting off the ground.

Answer 4

Having a woman or minority elected president would be a significant sign of progress in this country. It would mean that there are enough people who don't judge the candidate by their race or sex for such a person to be elected.

Answer 5

i agree, but judjing someone on thier sex has been around since even the constitution, "all MEN are created equal"

Answer 6

Amen.

Answer 7

doesnt matter but humans never know what theyre doing anyway!!

Answer 8

i think it would be cool! :)